- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12805 MFA No. 21273 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21273 OF 2013 (MV-) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. ARJUNSA S/O FHAKIRSA PATTAN AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O : GHANTIKERI, HUBLI-580020 DIST. DHARWAD-580001. …APPELLANT (BY KUM. PRIYANKA KADAMPUR, ADV APPEARED FOR SRI. MADANMOHAN M KHANNUR, ADV) AND: 1. SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O SOMAPPA OLEKAR AGE: MAJOR, (CORRECT AGE NOT KNOWN) OCC: BUSINESS, R/O : H NO.49, WAGGAR ONI, BHAIRIDEVARKOPPA, HUBLI-580026 DIST. DHARWAD-580001. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, IIIRD FLOOR, SUDEV PLAZA, OPPOSITE TO LAXMI TEMPLE, DAJIBAN PETH, HUBLI-580020 DIST. DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.K SOUDAGAR, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18-10-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.414/2011 ON THE FILE OF I-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HUBLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12805 MFA No. 21273 of 2013 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) by the claimant, challenging the common judgment and award dated 18.10.2012 passed in MVC No.414/2011 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hubballi. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: 3. On 22.12.2010, the petitioner and others were proceeding to Dharmasthala via Kumta in a Tempo Trax bearing Reg.No.KA-25/4708. At about 2.10 p.m., when the said vehicle reached near Handigon, a bus came from the backside, and consequently, the driver of the Tempo Trax took his vehicle to the left side of the road to allow the bus to pass. At that time, there was a pit by the side of the road. Therefore, the driver of the Tempo Trax lost control - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12805 MFA No. 21273 of 2013 over the vehicle. Due to which, it turtled down on the left side of the road. Due to the said impact, the petitioner and others sustained grievous injuries, and he spent a huge amount on medical expenses. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 4. The owner of the offending vehicle, despite service of a notice, remained unrepresented and was placed exparte. 5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. It is also contended that the vehicle was used for hire, though it is a private vehicle. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12805 MFA No. 21273 of 2013 Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 6. The Tribunal, clubbed all the claim petitions and, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed separate relevant issues, and the common evidence was recorded. 7. The petitioner in MVC No.414/2011, to substantiate his case, examined himself as P.W.7, examined the doctor as P.W.9, and marked 267 documents as Exs.P1 to P267. Conversely, the respondents before the tribunal have not led any evidence; however, marked 1 document as Ex.R1. 8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs vide judgment dated 18.10.2012, and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,12,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realisation. It is held that Respondent Nos 1 and 2 before the tribunal are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12805 MFA No. 21273 of 2013 directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation. 9. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC No.414/2011, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, she prays to allow the appeal. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the accident occurred in 2010. In the absence of proof of the income, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.6,000/- p.m., which is on the higher side. He also submits that the doctor who is examined as P.W.9 is not a treated doctor who has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12805 MFA No. 21273 of 2013 assessed the disability at 43%, however, the Tribunal assessed the disability at 14%, which is on the higher side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. Perused the records, and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 14. The point, that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation. 15. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioner, to prove the accident, produced the FIR at Ex.P-1, which discloses that the case is registered against the driver of the offending tempo trax. Reg. the quantum: 16. The petitioner to prove that he has suffered a disability, examined the doctor as P.W.9, who opined that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12805 MFA No. 21273 of 2013 the petitioner has suffered 43% permanent partial disability to the whole body, wherein the Tribunal has taken the disability at 14%, which is just and proper. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to a global compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-, including the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 17. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and the award passed by the Tribunal is hereby, modified. (iii) The petitioner is entitled to a global compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-, including the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization of the amount. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12805 MFA No. 21273 of 2013 (iv) The Tribunal records, and the amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7